From: Bill Davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
Date: Tue Aug 17 2004 - 14:21:42 CDT
Eivind Tagseth wrote:
> * Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> [2004-08-16 19:07:55 -0400]:
>
>>Here's an example of what I'm thinking, using most of your words:
>> A message includes a References header if and only if it is a
>>followup. A message which is related, supplementary, or posted to
>>respond to another message should be a followup.
>
>
> But this isn't how the References header works today:
>
> A message which is related,
>
> A messsage may be related to another message (i.e. it could talk about it
> in the body of the article), but may be a part of a completely different
> discussion, and should be threaded under that discussion, _not_ the discussion
> that the related message belongs to.
>
> supplementary,
>
> Again, a message can supplement another message but still belong to a
> different thread than the other message.
>
> or posted to respond to another message
>
> And I may even post a message to respond to another message, but still want
> to start a new thread.
>
> should be a followup.
>
> What you have described is a mixup of See-Also, In-Reply-To and References.
> The references header is used to indicate that a message belongs to the
> same discussion as another set of messages, in a threaded order. Why
> can't we keep it that simple?
I wanted to just define a followup as a message with a References
header, other people want to specify when the header should be present.
--
-bill davidsen (davidsen@tmr.com)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me